About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
that it's a hard job every day of the week. >> defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs of staff's general martin dempsey testified before the senate armed services committee on the defense department 2014 budget request. the pentagon budget request includes almost $527 billion in discretionary spending nearly 1% decrease from 2013. this is three hours and 45 minutes. >> good morning everybody. chuck hagel, general martin dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, accompanied by the department's comptroller undersecretary bob hailed for her hearing on department of defense fiscal year 2014 budget request and the posture of the u.s. armed forces we welcome secretary hagel on his first appearance as secretary of defense before this committee. we thank all of our witnesses for their service to our nation and to the soldiers sailors airmen and marines at home and in harm's way. we could never say that enough. your testimony today is a key component of the committees review of the fy2014 budget request for the department of defense. this year's request includes $526.6 billion
additional missile defense systems were needed to be deployed for the protection of the united states, whether domestically or abroad, would the russian government be consulted or informed before that decision was made? >> well, first, i can't answer for the president. that would be a decision for the president to make. i suspect have to reinvolve around treaty obligations, and we have before with other issues might be. >> in mah, the government requested meetings to take ac regularly to discuss the european missile shield. any talks to take play, and if there are plans for such talks, do they include any nato allies as part of the discussions? >> again, senator, i don't know about those talks that would be in purview of the secretary of state in the white house. i have not been consulted on any talks or possibility of what you're talking about. >> okay. you're not certain of whether there have been talks, but to your knowledge, there have not? n't know of any conversations of what you suggested on talks. >> i see time expired, thank you very much, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> than
in this race and our thoughts are with all of them today. the department of defense is prepared to respond quickly to any response for additional support from domestic law enforcement agencies. i will continue to consult closely with d.o.d. senior leaders on how we can best support the government's response and investigation. and chairman dempsey may have additional comments regarding this event as well. mr. chairman, i will now turn to my opening statement for this hearing. this year's 2014 budget request for the department of defense is -- as congressman lowey noted, a budget that was put together over many months. an enterprise as large as the department of defense, $600 billion is not collaborated with or on or numbers or budgets instructed in a manner of two or three months. and as we proceed in this hearing this morning, mr. chairman, we will get into some of the specifics of the budget and why some of the decisions were made on the basis of what the numbers will reveal and our responsibilities. allow me to express my appreciation to this subcommittee for its continued support of our
of missil defense approach that i just identified one as the amount and the phased adaptive approach and alaska both pieces do you approve both parts? >> i do. >> on the brac issue, as i understanding your testimony and your budget, mr. secretary, there is a short-term cost that there was an additional brac improvements, but that cost is not in the 2014 budget request. you put it in the 2015 budgeta >> the money is in 2016, it is $2.4 million of additional funds. previous rounds you testified saved, i believe, $12 billion annually. was that the savings that you say exist from the created from the last ground? from all the previous rounds. if you would like more detail maybe you could bring it out. i think you on the 75th barack you might remember you were in the the senate at the time in 2005. you might remember that i kind of lead the opposition of that round unsuccessfully. my senior senator was on the other side. yorm how you voted on that. we'll get in to that. >> by support. >> okay. okay. >> yeah i came with the first it was bringing down our infrastructure to an artificially l
of defense, we talk about the post office and prepayments being made. there is one truism on both, o s the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook. yes. so it is not an issue is this just a quasi-government organization, both dod and you need prepayments. we're ultimately on the hook the taxpayer is. what concerns me in a time, admitted, mr. chairman your low liquidity. you're not really sure you can get down as low as two days later this year, at a time in which the discussions have been made and i have read about the board of governors and your role. you do believe you have a fiduciary duty in your role to the postal service and in your role, correct? >> mr. chairman, representative, yes. >> that means there's a trust. there's a trust with you and the board of governors not just strictly you but i believe with the postmaster general and others in this situation. what i keep hearing is, well we thought of and we're looking at that. we have a five-year plan that was many years ago. we have discussions that we want to do. we're exploring ideas. these are direct quotes from today, exploring h
of the defense intelligence agency spa capano current thfureat to the national securi. along with the national security agency, the national geospatial intelligence agency and the national reconnaissanceoffice and thinteencen etservices erts of the department of de that are also elements of the intelligence communy thatth direct clapper hits. director clapper while much of the information that you provide to policy makers in putting members of congress cannot be shared with the public because of its sensitivity and classification. the people who elected us to serve deserve the best information that we can publicly provide them. so we are glad that you and the general are with us this morning to do just that. among the challenges that we face is a self-inflicted wound, one with the fact that director clapper has rightly said amplify the other threats that we come from around the world that challenges the and prioritized cuts required by sequestration. this committee is interested in hearing from both of you today about the impact of the fy 2013 sequestration and the impact it's having on the in
of defense is currently spending $10 billion more conducting the war effort in afghanistan this year than was estimated would be necessary. from what we understand, in order to make up for this estimation the department of defense will have to pull from other funds from its base budget, which is difficult because of sequestration and the other long-term spending limits imposed by the budget control act of 2011. the problems with trying to budget and plan for a war a year in advance and how unforeseen costs can arise. at the same time a $10 billion is copulation is a little alarming. -- miss calculation is a little bit alarming. general, can you explain to us how that underestimation occurred? that we insidere u.s. forces in afghanistan under estimated $10 billion for our requirements for this year. i can assure you we have gone back and look at every dollar we have spent to make sure we have spent to good effect. we have significantly reduced the money we are spending in afghanistan. i will go back and take a look at where the projection came from and why we are in the position we are in
areas. one, financial planning going forward at the departments and number two, missile defense and our ability to defend the homeland. i want to start that much discussion about sequestration that the current budget and the department will hope fully in the month of may comply with the scots that present short-term challenges of long-term challenges. in addition, they contemplate a renew commission process going forward. i would suggest of assessing sequestration in the short-term and long-term and cannot brac process that a component should conclude consideration to the degree with which we can reduce the prance overseas, reduce bases overseas command manpower overseas, consistent with essential imperative for national security. the first question i wanted to ask secretary hagel as to what extent is the department complying with these financial pressure is our ability to drive down overseas footprints. referable to reduce overseas and here at home if it can be done consistently national security and to what extent is it apart and engaged right now in that assessment and analysis? >> t
of the defense budget. this program is singular in terms of its costs and the way it has been structured. attribute maytive not be all the radars and sensors and missiles and stealth technology and supersonic speeds. it may well be the way it has been designed to avoid budget cutters in washington. on c-e sunday at 8:00 span's "q&a." >> in a few moments, the commander of u.s. and international forces in afghanistan testifies on capitol hill. in about two and a half hours, a news conference on the investigation of the treatment of detained suspected terrorists. after that, a hearing on the federal -- the president house budget request. filmmaker ken burns his latest project. the commander of u.s. and international forces in afghanistan says he needs to see how afghan forces perform before making any recommendations on the future of foreign troop levels. and general joseph dunn furred was before the committee -- dunford was before the committee for two and half hours. -- two and a half hours. >> all set? good morning, everybody. before we begin, i want to take a moment to reflect on the tr
array to include a sophisticated air defense capability, depending who is operating in. a no-fly zone would not be without cost. >> even though the best testified he could with cruise missiles and within the patriot missiles in the right place is that we could establish a no-fly zone. >> patriot missiles i'm getting out of my league. that is essentially a point weapon. the theory is you could position patriot missiles outside of syria and somehow provide security outside the zone, given the nature of the pastry about then, which is not an area of a project or would be tough. >> and what's fascinating is now you are saying instead of the joint chiefs of staff that it has deteriorated so much that you now have questions whether we should supply weapto rebels are not, which the argues we shod have supplied them back ommended coing to published reports well heta o state, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs f staff. it's remarkable. see you in the administration figure and say we don't know where the weapons are going. maybe if we help the people of writing from the beginning befor
military coalition group and so one year at least in my opinion as secretary of defense it's not clear enough to make any conclusions, inclusive adjustments to a policy recommendation on this is, mr. president, this is exactly what we should do. >> i had used two terms as i think are important, coherent and inclusive, because as i think as general dempsey suggested, should there be an immediate collapse of the assad government, there is the potential for civil strife unless the opposition is not only coherent but it embraces the three major traditions in the country, shia, sunni, four, christian and critic another context, we didn't have, and libya and again i will stand to be corrected, there was tribal rivalry but there wasn't quite such a traditional distinction of cleavage, sectarian cleavage in other areas also. and that is a very elusive objective. i thank you very much. >> if i could just add, do you mind? it's important to mention i think, you will hear some folks say we have to act now or we risk this become a sectarian conflict. i just want you to give my view of this. it is
on the future of the republican party. noonis beginning live at eastern on c-span2. >> defense secretary chuck hagel testified before the senate armed services committee wednesday. secretary hagel said there is a $22 billion shortfall this year. general dempsey said the department is not sure how this will impact military readiness. this is three hoursnd 45 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. today, the committee gives a warm welcome to general chuck dempsey,neral accompanied by the department comptroller undersecretary bob hale, for being on the department of defense fiscal year 2014. we welcomet secretary hagel on his first appearance as secretary of defense before the committee. we thank all of our witnesses for their service to our nation and to the soldiers, sailors, and marines at home and in harm's way, we can never say that enough. your st today is a key component of the committee's review of the two dozen 14 budget request for the department of defense. this year's request includes $526.60 billion for the base and $88.50 billion for overseas contingency operations , although, as your
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)